AC 275; (March, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-275 (A.C. No. 275). April 29, 1960.
GERVACIO L. LIWAG, complainant, vs. ATTY. GILBERTO NERI, respondent.
FACTS
Prior to October 21, 1952, spouses Enrique and Ursula Pineda requested complainant Gervacio L. Liwag to act as counter-indemnitor with the Manila Surety & Fidelity Company for a bond posted in favor of the National Rice and Corn Corporation (NARIC). When the Pinedas failed to liquidate their obligation, NARIC enforced the bond against the surety company, which then collected ₱2,951.35 from Liwag. After failing to recover this amount extra-judicially from the Pinedas, Liwag engaged the services of respondent Atty. Gilberto Neri on a contingent fee basis of forty percent. As neighbors, Neri initially tried to talk to the Pinedas, who admitted the debt and pleaded for time to pay. On or about July 17, 1956, with no payment made, Neri wrote a demand letter threatening judicial action. On the same date, Liwag delivered ₱30.00 to Neri as the filing fee for a complaint. Neri did not actually file any complaint, allegedly because the debtor spouses gave assurances to pay, but he informed Liwag that he had already done so. The truth was later discovered, prompting Liwag to commence this disbarment case.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Gilberto Neri committed a breach of professional ethics warranting disciplinary action.
RULING
Yes, the respondent committed a breach of professional ethics. The Court found it an established fact that Neri received ₱30.00 from Liwag as a filing fee. Even assuming Neri had full discretion as to the means of collection, he breached professional ethics by falsely making Liwag believe that a complaint had been filed against the Pinedas and by not returning the amount intended for the filing fee. However, considering that Neri had not yet received any payment for his services and that Liwag had subsequently been paid, the Court deemed disbarment or suspension too harsh. Instead, the respondent was reprimanded and warned that a repetition of similar misconduct or any violation of his oath would be dealt with more drastically.